With the recent bloom of commercially successful superhero movies and TV shows, I am reminded of the childhood aspiration that I, as well as many others, held of being a superhero. Episode after episode and scene after scene remind me of wanting to have extraordinary abilities and using them for the greater good. However, today's realistic portrayals of superheroes also delve into the personal issues that heroes face in their civilian life. Upon seeing some of the problems that superpowers cannot fix, it makes me second guess my earlier childhood desires. Is being Spiderman worth also being bullied and alienated Peter Parker? Is being Batman for a short time worth living the life of a lonely, orphaned Bruce Wayne? What happens to these heroes after they retire, if they retire at all? Watchmen, the 1987 graphic novel from writer Alan Moore and illustrator David Gibbons, explores the lives of 5 retired superheroes investigating the murder of a retired colleague (Watchmen 1). Daniel Dreiberg is one of these five superheroes and early in the novel, Gibbons illustrates a panel featuring Daniel sitting next to his old Nite Owl costume (Watchmen 13). Gibbon displays Daniel as the lesser of two in an unequal relationship between Daniel and his costume through his use of visual elements.

The usage of lines in Gibbon's panel serves to direct the viewer's attention to the main subjects of the image, Daniel Dreiberg and his Nite Owl costume. From the bottom and right edges of the panel, there are metal railings that run towards each other. This draws the viewer's eye to where the railings meet at the center of the panel. From there, a thin line extends to the top of the panel, diving Daniel and the closet the costume is in. The effect this thin line has is that it does not become the focus of the panel, but instead marks a division between Daniel and his former costume. Gibbons also uses lines in this panel to note a difference between Daniel and the costume. The costume is surrounded by the lines of the closet it is placed in, while Daniel does not receive the same surroundings. Gibbons does this to show that Daniel does not receive the same treatment his costume does, giving the reader the idea that the costume is valued more than Daniel. While Gibbons uses lines in order to bring attention to the subjects and the division between the two, he uses proximity on the panel to deepen the relationship between Daniel and the costume.

Daniel and the costume are placed near each other in order to highlight a relationship between the two main subjects of the panel. Gibbons places Daniel sitting right next to the closet in which his old costume is being displayed. The proximity between Daniel and the costume denotes either a current or former closeness that the two might have shared. It is worth noting that while these subjects are next to each other, they sit on opposite sides of the panel. Divided by a faint line, Daniel sits on the left side of the panel and the costume remains standing on the right. What this does for the reader is highlight the separation between the two subjects, implying that the costume and Daniel are not currently involved with each other. By establishing a connection between Daniel and the costume as well as a current separation between the two, the reader sees that there either was a close relationship in the past or that there will be one in the future. This relationship between Daniel and the costume can be further examined by looking at the space allotted to each subject.

Gibbons uses the element of space in order to show the unequal relationship between Daniel and his former costume. Though Daniel and the costume have the same dimensions, the costume occupies a larger percentage of panel space than Daniel does. This difference in the consumption of panel space can be attributed to the different posture between Daniel and the costume. While the costume is hung tall with all of its features fully on display, Daniel sits with his back hunched and shoulders slumped. The costume warrants more space and almost appears to "stand" tall, while Daniel resigns his space and slumps in his seat. The proximity between the two only serves to deepen the visual effect that Gibbons creates with the subject's postures and space consumption. While it is clear that the costume is not actually controlling anything about the image or the situation, the viewer sees Daniel consuming less space and reaching lower heights. Gibbons does this so that Daniel appears to be less worthy of the space than the costume. To the viewer, Daniel is the lesser of the two depicted in this visual relationship. The uneven relationship between Daniel and the costume is only made more apparent when looking at how Gibbons contrasts the two subjects in the panel.

A variety of elements are used to create a contrast that highlights a difference in the visual relationship between Daniel and the costume. The costume is drawn with long, interrupted lines to show the costume standing tall without hindrance. On the other hand, Daniel is drawn with short and curvy lines to denote his slumped posture. The lines around the two subjects also differ, with the costume's straight lined closet and the blotchy and cracked wall behind Daniel. The effect that these lines have is that while the costume has all of these organized straight lines in and around it, Daniel lacks the same linear organization. Another way the two subjects are made to contrast is the choice of coloring for Daniel and the costume. Daniel wears a cream shirt and brown shoes with a tan suit that almost compliments the faded wallpaper behind him. Even the most colorful part of his outfit, a purple tie, seems pale in comparison to the Nite Owl costume. The cape, mask, and boots are colored a vibrant maroon that stands out from other colors used in the panel. In addition, the costume's belt and goggles are colored a gold only matching the button that Daniel looks at sorrowfully in his hand. The effect that this difference in coloring has is that the viewer's eye is drawn to the costume's vibrant colors and confident look while Daniel's bland look matches his posture. Due to the contrast created between linework and coloring, the costume receives more visual attention than Daniel. Gibbons does this to display the costume's superiority to Daniel within this visual relationship.

The use of design elements by Gibbons is effective enough to portray a complex relationship between Daniel and his costume without the use of a single word from Alan Moore. The viewer sees Daniel Dreiberg struggling to receive the attention that his costume does, whether that be the illustrator's view of the relationship or a reflection of Daniel's view. Moore and Gibbons make a point of displaying how the attention received as a superhero can affect a hero's personal life. By doing this they suggest a new factor that can be attributed to the recent popularity of realistic superhero media. Moore and Gibbons claim that sometimes, the one person that a hero is unable to save is themselves.

